PSY 6450 Unit 6

1. PSY 6450 Unit 6 Feedback

2. Schedule • Today - lecture U6 Feedback • In-class exercise (8 points) Wednesday • Analysis of feedback: reinforcement or not? • Exam (27 points) on Monday, 10/29 • ME1 over Units 1-4 on Wednesday, 10/31 • Last day to withdraw without academic penalty: Monday, 11/5

3. Exercise • Komaki vs. Locke • In one of Komaki’s study she used feedback alone to increase safety and maintained that the feedback was reinforcement because behaviors increased dramatically immediately after she implemented the feedback • Locke contested this interpretation saying feedback could not be considered a reinforcer because: • Feedback can never be considered a reinforcer because it does not always increase performance • In this particular study, feedback could not be functioning as a reinforcer because performance improved immediately when it was introduced, rather than gradually as is typical when behavior is reinforced

4. Exercise, cont. • For each of those statements indicate whether • You agree or disagree with Locke’s statement • Explain/discuss, using as many reasons as you can • You can bullet your points, then provide a brief explanation under the bullet • Use material from this unit and outside material if you want to (which will have to be referenced, APA style) • Not a long paper - 1-2 pages should do it • This is not an opinion paper - you should at least refer to relevant material that we have covered in this class • Questions?

5. Intro to Peterson • Both Peterson and Balcazar et al. make the same major points: • Feedback is NOT a principle of behavior • Yet we often talk about it as if it were • Peterson • The term “feedback” has become professional slang

6. SO1: Why is it inappropriate to talk in the abstract about what function fbk serves? • When people address the behavioral function of feedback generally or in the “abstract,” they usually say that it works because it is an SD or Sr, which Peterson says in incorrect • Feedback, information about past performance can potentially serve any number of behavioral functions depending upon the situation • It is first and foremost a physical stimulus and only that. Thus, it can have any or all of the possible effects of any stimulus in a particular situation • Conditioned reinforcer • Conditioned punisher • SD • CS (in a respondent relation) • MO

7. SO2: Why can’t feedback be either an Sr or SD in most settings? • Peterson also states that feedback cannot be either an Sr or an SD in most settings • He gives two reasons for each, but deals with them in a different order than I am going to • First, why can’t feedback be a reinforcer? • Second, why can’t feedback be an SD?

8. SO2, cont: Feedback/reinforcer • A reinforcer must immediately follow behavior. In most applied settings, feedback is too delayed. Diagram will be provided in lecture (straightforward, the next one often causes problems)

9. SO2, cont: Feedback/reinforcer • A reinforcer must be contingent upon performance (adventitious Sr aside). Feedback is not usually contingent upon performance. Reinforcement Diagrams will be provided in lecture Feedback Diagrams will be provided in lecture In most situations, you get feedback whether or notyou emit the appropriate target response, hence the feedback is not contingent upon performance and cannot be reinforcement (contingent? If-then relationship; but I’ll come back to this in SO 3, to see whether this analysis is correct)

10. SO2, cont: Feedback/SD • An SD must evoke a behaviorwithin 60 sec. Feedback typically does not. • But first, this may be a new concept for you • Operational vs. functional definition of an SD • Operational (Malottian): An SD is a stimulus in the presence of which a response is reinforced or punished • Functional (Michael): An SD must evoke a responsewithin 60 sec given a prior history of SD/Sdelta training

11. SO2, cont: Feedback/SD • Operational (Malottian): An SD is a stimulus in the presence of which a response is reinforced or punished. • Why operational? It tells you what you need to do (what “operation” you need you need to perform) in order to make something into an SD, but it doesn’t tell you the effect or function that the stimulus must have in order to be an SD • In other words, you could perform the “operation” but for various reasons the stimulus might not come to evoke a response, and if it doesn’t evoke a response, then it isn’t an SD (x rays, high frequency tone, visual stimulus for a visually impaired individual. We have functional definitions for consequences why not for the SD? Malott would agree that a stimulus is not an SD unless it evokes a behavior)

12. SO2, cont: Feedback/SD • Functional (Michael): An SD must evoke a response within 60 sec given a prior history of SD/Sdelta training • Why functional? It tells you what effect the stimulus must have on behavior in order to be an SD • That is, it must evoke a behavior within 60 seconds after it is presented (x rays, high frequency tone, visual stimulus for a visually impaired individual. We have functional definitions for consequences why not for the SD? Malott would agree that a stimulus is not an SD unless it evokes a behavior)

13. SO2, cont. Feedback/SD SD Diagram will be provided in lecture Feedback Diagram will be provided in lecture Be careful! It is not the delay between the response and consequence that is relevant here (as it was for the argument about why feedback usually cannot be a reinforcer). Rather, it is the delay between feedback as an antecedent stimulus and the response! Diagram will be provided in lecture

14. SO2, cont: Feedback/SD • For an SD, the response must be reinforced in the presence of that stimulus but not in its absence. With feedback there isn’t usually an S∆. SD Diagrams will be provided in lecture Feedback Diagrams will be provided in lecture (for exam, not sufficient just to say, no S∆, explain; just like Malott’s procrastination eg with rgb)

15. SO3: Is Peterson right in saying feedback is not contingent on performance? Feedback is not contingent on performance: R (decrease electric use) –––> Feedback No R (do not decrease use) –––> Feedback But is it? Feedback is not a unitary stimulus. Doesn’t feedback differ depending upon whether performance is good or bad? Feedback graphs will be added in lecture R (decrease electric use) ––> Feedback No R (no decrease/increase) ––> Feedback Are those two feedback graphs the same stimulus? So, isn’t feedback contingent upon performance after all? (one of the reasons why feedback can’t be a reinforcer; click, then click again)

16. SO7: Why is it that if reinforcement already exists, fdb might improve performance further? • Feedback may have discriminative control and evoke higher levels of performance due to generalization of past reinforcement contingencies That is, in the past, when feedback has been introduced, you have been reinforced for performing well and criticized/punished for performing poorly. Thus, in the current situation, as long as performance isn’t maxed out, it may evoke higher levels of performance as an antecedent stimulus (stimulus generalization) • Once the worker is performing better due to the feedback, the higher performance results in more rewards (due to the already existing differential reinforcement system), and the greater rewards then sustain the higher performance over time (skipping SOs 4,5,&6, straightforward but fair game; already a differential reinforcement system in place but no fdb - If you add feedback why might performance increase further - assuming, of course, it hasn’t maxed out: two parts!)

17. SO7: Example • Assume that workers are being paid a per piece incentive for each widget they assemble. The more widgets they produce, the more money they make. But, they are not getting feedback • Now, weekly feedback is introduced • Feedback increases the number of widgets produced because of generalization of past contingencies (stimulus generalization, SD) • They earn more money now because they are producing more widgets than before, and the extra earnings now sustain their higher levels of performance (both points are important for the analysis!)

18. SO7: What evidence do we have that feedback may enhance the effectiveness of extant rewards? • Bucklin et al. (JOBM, 2003, 2/3, pp. 64-94) • ABA with A=incentives, B=incentives plus feedback • Annecdotal from Bill Abernathy’s work: Monetary incentives and monthly feedback • “Need PM to bridge the gap” • Stongest may by Union National Bank case study - never published

19. Union National Bank, Little Rock, AR • When: early to mid 1980s • Who: Abernathy, McNally, McAdams, & Dierks • Job: Proof operator at bank • Get checks and deposit slips from all bank branches and, using a proofing machine, put the numbers on the bottom so they can be automatically entered into the bank’s computer • DV: number of items entered per machine hour • Industry standard: 1,000 items per hour • Phases • Baseline • Weekly graphed feedback

20. UNB cont. • Phases, cont. • Incentive 1 • One piece rate: 1500 items per machine hour • Higher piece rate: 2000 items per machine hour • Higher yet: 2500 items per machine hour • Incentive 2 • Above plus higher rate: 3500 items per machine hour • No feedback, but incentives (new supervisor) • Reinstate feedback with Incentive 2 conditions • Last three phases represent a very nice reversal, incentives with and without feedback

21. Union National Bank: Proof Operators Incentive w/o fdbk Fdbk 1,800 Inct 1 2,700 Inct 2 3,500 Fdbk restored Baseline 1,065 ~Industry standard Why reversal? Notice:Baseline in weeks Remaining in months! Almost 7 years of data! (note that it took four months before performance declined w/o feedback - may not see it in shorter studies)

22. SO8: Effectiveness of feedback alone and with tangible rewards, Balcazar et al. • % of articles in which performance consistently improved • Feedback alone: ~30% • Feedback with tangible rewards: ~90% • Take home point:Feedback works because it is correlated with a differential reward system • But what about when it works alone? • Feedback may be linked to a differential reward system even though that reward system was not explicitly designed by the researcher/practitioner • Performance may have been measured for too short of time to see a possible decrease over time - feedback would be expected to increase performance temporarily when first introduced

23. SO9: Why feedback may be more effective when provided by supervisor SO9A: First reason • Feedback on how well workers are doing may prompt supervisors to provide differential consequences for good and bad performance • Why? The job of the supervisor is to get things done through their workers; thus, when workers perform well, it reflects well on the supervisor and the organizational rewards that the supervisor gets (good performance is reinforcing/rewarding to the supervisor) • So…

24. SO9A, cont. For the supervisor: Antecedent: R –––––––––––> Sr Good feedback Praises worker “Thanks!” More good work Antecedent: R –––––––––––> Sr Bad feedback Criticizes worker “I’ll do better” Prompts worker Better work Thus, feedback may change the consequences that the supervisor provides to the workers. (demonstration of this point: Richman et al. article, self vs supervisory feedback)

25. SO9B SO9B: Second reason: Will be provided in lecture

26. SO10: Balcazar et al.’s fundamental conclusion • If no system of functional, differential consequences exist, there is probably no point in establishing a feedback system. Effort would be better spent developing procedures (contingent rewards) for wanted behaviors • In other words, you should not develop and implement a feedback system until and unless you develop and implement a system of functional, differential rewards! (or determine one already exists) • This has become a problem in the field • 37% of articles reviewed by Balcazar et al. used feedback alone (review covered 1974-1984, approximately) • 29% of articles reviewed by Alvero et al. used feedback alone (review covered 1985-1998) (This is straightforward, yet students seem to have trouble with it: more on next slide)

27. SO10: Implications of that fundamental conclusion (NFE) • That also means that the effects of different feedback characteristics may well depend upon whether or not feedback is correlated with valued rewards and the extent to which it is correlated with such rewards • Kang, Oah & Dickinson (2003) found that more frequent feedback increased performance when individuals were paid monetary incentives but not when they were paid hourly • This is a problem in organizations - it is often difficult to determine the extent to which feedback is linked to differential rewards in organizational settings, which could account for discrepancies in the results of feedback studies conducted in different organizations.

28. SO11: If feedback is established independently of functional, differential rewards, what type appears to be the most effective? • Feedback that is: • Graphic • Confirmed by Wilk & Redmon (1998) • Confirmed by Austin, Weatherly, & Gravina (2005) • Provided at least once a week • Combined with tangible rewards • This is interesting - basically the authors are saying you need to implement a reward system along with the feedback, so I am not at all sure it is a logical answer to the question that was asked, but you should include it in your answer. (my interesting experience with graphic feedback in lab vs. written fdb).

29. SO12: Dickinson’s analysis of feedback • When most analyze feedback as a consequence, they refer to it as a reward or positive reinforcement contingency • Dickinson believes that feedback probably functions as a negative reinforcement contingency, escape and/or avoidance (which people refer to as an aversive contingency) • Agrees with Malott and Michael on this one - “the world lives by fear.” • Likely rule, “If I don’t perform well, I am going to be criticized by my supervisor” (and/or am not likely to get what I want from the supervisor) (cont. on next slide)

30. SO12, cont: Why does Dickinson believe feedback controls behavior via negative reinforcement? • As yourself these questions: • What types of consequences are most common in business, industry, and human service settings? • That is, what typically happens when a person does a good job? • What typically happens when a person does a bad job? • Finally, why do organizations typically start to measure performance in an organization? • Where do the answers to these questions lead? Feedback controls behavior via escape and/or avoidance contingencies (something is not right -one more issue)

31. Posted individual and social comparison feedback (NFE) Over the years, some researchers have posted individual data that is identified by code (see Anderson et al. article this unit), individual data identified by employee name (Anderson, Geller, Ludwig), and individual data plus social comparison data (individual and group). These procedures have been very effective, with and without supplemental consequences. • What do you think about those type of procedures? • What do you think is controlling performance when they work?

32. Posted individual and social comparison feedback: or Dickinson’s soap box (NFE) Dickinson’s soap box will be provided in lecture

33. SO13: Richman et al. article, intro • Excellent example of PM research in a human service setting • Human service settings are difficult from an OBM perspective • More labor intensive due to required staff-client contact to maintain and protect welfare of clients • Must focus more on behaviors of staff rather than accomplishments - most of the work of the staff consists of interactions with the clients • Staff behaviors and interactions can be naturally punished by client behaviors (I’ve seen quite a few human service workers with bruises and scratches!) (I chose this article for two main reasons: the measurement system and the issues it raises about self-monitoring alone) (I am just going to touch on a few of the objs over the articles: business dismisses work in human services-it’s much more difficult to implement a PM program in a human service setting than in business)

34. Richman et al. intro, cont. (NFE) • Rationale of study To determine whether a self-monitoring procedure, with minimal supervisory involvement, could increase staff adherence to scheduled activities and on-task behavior • Participants 10 staff members in two houses of an intermediate care facility for “mentally retarded” (developmentally disabled)

35. SO13A: What two general categories of behaviors were recorded? • On-schedule behavior • Is the staff member in the assigned area for the scheduled activity according to the posted schedule? • Does the staff member have all of the materials necessary to conduct the activity as indicated on the activity card? • 13B Regardless of whether the staff member was actually implementing the task (that is, the staff member could be off-task in the sense of chatting with another staff member, drinking coffee, or just interacting “generally” with the clients) • On-task behavior • Is the staff member engaged in behaviors for any of the three appropriate activities (group, client/house custodial, or one-on-one training) • 13C Regardless of whether the staff member was implementing the specific activity that had been scheduled (in other words, even if the staff member was doing group training when one-on-one training was scheduled) (very nice measures of behavior, simple)

36. SO18: Self monitoring increased performance substantially. Why, then, was supervisory feedback added? (First, note lack of effectiveness of in-service - again; yes, they did get further increases, but the main reason -next slide)

37. SO18: Why add supervisory feedback? • The behavior of 5 of the 10 staff members became variable over time (that’s 50% of the participants) • Supervisory feedback improved both on-schedule and on-task behavior for each of the 5. • Demonstrates the importance of supervisory feedback • Also suggests that self-monitoring may be effective on a short-term basis but may not be effective long-term • But, why would we expect self-monitoring to be effective over the long run? • What consequences are there for self-monitoring or for the self-monitored performance? • Mistake that many make in the field, just like with feedback - that is assuming it will work without careful analysis of the consequences/contingencies (question: are we doing more harm than good when we publish short term studies that indicate that interventions are Successful, particularly when the results don’t seem to conform to a solid behavior analysis?)

38. Anderson et al. article, one of Hantula’s first studies • Fun study, because it was done in a student-run university bar “Cleaning was an ancillary requirement and also pre-empted time that could be spent with peers or studying. The result was a conspicuous, pervasive accumulation of grease and various sticky materials on virtually every surface. Garbage areas were strewn with debris.” University officials said the bar had been a near-impossible management situation for years, and the State Board of Health threatened closure. (again, I am just going to go over a few selected SOs)

39. Anderson et al. study, cont. • My main purpose for including it is that it is one of the rare studies that has examined task clarification by itself • Given the popularity of task clarification right now, it is important that you understand that task clarification alone may increase performance moderately, but you should not expect large increases • That should not be surprising - task clarification is an antecedent • However, it can be a very important part of a component intervention - unless workers know what they are supposed to do, they cannot do it! • In other words, I am not “dissing” task clarification!! (but I am saying you probably should not use it alone) (probably getting the idea by now from what I have said about feedback, self monitoring and now task clarification, I am a firm believer in consequences of behavior.)

40. SOs 22 and 24: Effects of task clarification and task clarification plus feedback • Task clarification increased task completion 13% over baseline • Task clarification plus feedback increased task completion62% over baseline

41. Crawley et al. article, introduction • I have included this article because it is the best one I have ever seen with respect to improving sales behaviors and I would wager that most many of the behaviors identified in their exquisite analysis would generalize to other sales positions • Study was conducted by one of Ed Feeney’s consultants, Bill Crawley (I didn’t stress Feeney’s accomplishments in U1, but I recommend that you go back and read the Dickinson article for an historical perspective) • The site was Ethan Allen • (NFE) Note the analysis at the beginning that was designed to determine the best opportunities for intervention, based on both the potential for improving performance (exemplar performer vs. average performer) and the economic pay-off of intervening on the performance

42. SO25: What approach was not successful in identifying what made sales reps effective? • Surveys were sent to the top sales representatives in the country asking what is was that they did that made them so effective • This approach did not work because sales representatives could not describe the behaviors that made them successful • I am friendly • It’s genetic - my parents were sales representatives • You need to be “up” • You need to be aggressive • General point Even though workers are exemplary workers, they can’t tell you what they do that makes them exemplary workers. Those behaviors are often contingency-shaped (controlled by direct-acting contingencies) and they never have had to describe them (describing what you do and doing what you do are different behavioral repertoires) • Automobile mechanics • Construction workers

43. SO26: Exquisite specificity of the targeted behaviors • To determine the behaviors • They observed 65 top performers • Over a four month period of time • For 1,000 hours • Both inside the store and at in-home sales calls • Recorded the stimulus-response sequences • That is, what were the antecedents that prompted a response by the sales representative, and how did the sales representatives respond to those antecedents • Also interviewed customers for 50 hours • (NFE) Pilot tested the entire intervention in two stores • First with the consultant as the coach • Then with the store manager as the coach (fidelity - did they create an intervention that could be carried out by employees)

44. SO26: Exquisite specificity of the targeted areas and behaviors, cont. (NFE) • Areas with 5-11 behaviors in each area • Customer greeted • Customer needs identified • Needs matched to store product and service benefits • Objections identified and overcome • Decision maker identified • Close made • Results of sales contact • Follow-up action taken (48 behaviors in addition to smiling, eye contact, natural voice, and use of customer’s name in each area)

45. SO26: Exquisite specificity of the targeted areas and behaviors, cont. (NFE) • Examples of behaviors in the Customer Greeted area • Customers should be approached within 120 seconds after entering the store • The sales representative should stand within 3-4 feet of the customer, smile and maintain eye contact • The sales representative should approach the customer at a normal pace and maintain a natural and relaxed posture • Introduce self using first and last names and identify his/her position • Obtain the customer’s name and use it throughout the sales interaction

46. SO28: Two reasons why commissions did not function as effective rewards Sales representatives received sales commissions monthly which most would assume would be sufficient to maintain high levels of performance • Commission payments were delayed, often by as many as 3 months, weakening the relation between sales and the amount of money earned • Commissions earned in January would not be received until March or April • Commissions were based on sales, an accomplishment measure, and sales representatives did not know the behaviors required to improve sales • The initial survey that failed to identify the critical target behaviors showed that sales representatives did not know what behaviors led to improved sales

47. SO29: Why is it important to compare data to records for the same months in the preceding year? • As part of the analysis to determine the effectiveness of the program, they compared the sales data to sales records for the same month the preceding year. Why? • Sales fluctuate seasonally and monthly • February is traditionally a big sales month while December is traditionally a low sales month • In behavior analysis, we often use time series data (AB design) to determine the effectiveness of our interventions but • If you compared sales in February and it had increased in comparison to Dec and Jan, you may conclude that your program was successful when it was not • Alternatively, if you compared Dec data with Nov data (with traditionally higher sales), you may conclude your program was not successful, when indeed it was (including this just so you don’t just say “due to seasonal fluctuations” but add an explanation)

48. Questions over study objectives? • In-class exercise • Feedback can never be considered a reinforcer because it does not always produce an increase in performance • Agree or disagree? • Why? • In Komaki’s study feedback was not a reinforcer because performance improved immediately upon the introduction of feedback, rather than gradually • Agree or disagree? • Why?